I know that male to female gender reassignment is more common, but why? I’ve heard a few of the theories but none of them seemed too well grounded in facts.
No cite for this, but I recall reading that more males are born with birth defects than females, so it’s possible that the mechanism which keeps females from having birth defects also prevents the conditions from arising which produce a female child who feels that she was born the wrong gender.
My WAG is because these changes are caused by abnormal brain development during early development. That’s kind of related to what Tuckerfan said. The default setting for mammals is female. If something doesn’t develop during gestation the foetus will tend to stay female. That’s not going to result in problems for a female but will for a male. That’s part of the reason why males have more congenital defects. There is more modification needed to produce a male which leads to more scope for error. A male who’s brain never develops maleness will stay female mentally even though physically male. A female who stays female isn’t really going to notice.
At least part of it is that female-to-male gender reassignment surgery has far poorer results.
Let’s be honest here: who really wants to be a big, smelly, hairy man?
Bingo.
Female-to-male requests for surgery are fast approaching the same percentage as male-to-female, which puts the lie to the many zany theories about transsexualism.
It has always been easier for biological women to pass as men, and the surgery has always been (and still is) much more radical, expensive and unsatisfactory than male-to-female.
Ah, thanks Eve. I didn’t realize that the numbers were similar now. So is it now fairly clear that both sexes have equal numbers of those seeking a swap in someway?
Pretty much, though the research is scanty and poorly funded. Studies seem to show it’s caused by prenatal exposure to disruptive hormones at about the time the hypothalamus is forming (about the 7th week of pregnancy). Transexualism occurs in all countries, cultures, classes, races, so it is pretty certainly a phisiological, rather than psychological, disorder.
I believe the saying in the industry is " Its easier to make a hole than a pole."
Interesting thread…I hope this isn’t too much of a highjack…but basically the plumbing of a male is quite a bit more complex than the female plumbing, so surgically constructing male parts has in the past has lagged behind that of surgically constructing female parts…On the other hand, the original female hormonal picture is very complex (if ovulation and so forth are considered), but male to female hormonal conversions are pretty good, as all of the features of an ovulating female need not be present in a transexual female.
I may be way wrong here…
Actually, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the parts themselves are about equally easy to construct. Traditionally, though, it’s been considered much more difficult to make a penis with satisfactory neurologic and sexual response. In other words, it was considered easier to build a functional hole than a functional pole. As there’s been research into the female sexual response, though, the definition of a truly functional vagina has changed somewhat. Now, some urologists apparently consider it easier to construct a truly functional penis than a fully functional vagina.
That differential probably accounts for a lot of the historical disparity of FTM requests, but I’d say a whole lot of it is sociological, too. Western society has traditionally been more accepting of girls who act like guys than of guys who act like girls. You know, the whole tomboy/sissy thing, and all the connotations those words carry. If society is fairly accepting of you dressing, acting, and living as a man regardless of your genitals, there’s somewhat less incentive to go through a long, painful, expensive series of surgeries which could potentially destroy your sexual response. If society’s not accepting of you living as your gender, though, and you’ve got a pretty good chance of being able to have a satisfactory sex life afterward, it’s got to be a little easier to go for it.
A lot of people are unaware that FTM reassignments are increasing because it’s something that the media doesn’t play up much. There’s less shock value, less emtional and psychological resonance, I suppose. Stories about MTF reassignment grab attention because of men’s response to the idea of even voluntary emasculation, and attention equals sales.
Do you have a cite? AFAIK most neovaginas are capable of sexual sensation and orgasm. OTTOMH if , rather than the usual penile inversion, a length of colon is transplanted, the neovagina is self-lubricating as well.
Here’s a question - I’ve heard of some M2F women who have a very different type of SRS done. Because the creation of a vagina can be problematic and the surgery major, and continual maintenance and stretching can be an issue, I have read of a couple M2F women who had complete SRS - but with no vagina. They had a clitoris formed, and complete outer and inner labia, but when you went past that it was just - well, blank. There was a slang term used in the article that was somewhat offensive, but I was wondering if there was a medical term for this. I’m fairly up on this and somehow seem to be forgetting the term (plus I’m at a place where I can’t Google…)
IIRC, this was very useful for one woman who had medical problems which precluded the major sugery of creating the vagina, but not the labioplasty and clitoral formation.
I wish I hadn’t read that.
Still, it’s not the same lubrication, is it? IIRC, vaginal fluids are produced basically by “sweating” combined with input from the Bartholin’s (sp?) gland. It’s slippery, yes, but not the same stuff.
In particular, it wouldn’t taste the same, would it?
Well, there’s only one way to know for sure…
“Thank you all for coming here today. We hope to definitively answer certain questions regarding differences in sensory elements between natal and surgicaly constructed vaginas. So, if you’ll all disrobe and place your feet in the stirrups, I’ll be around shortly to lick the alphabet.”
At least that’s what I think I said to the subjects. I don’t have any clear memories until I awoke three days later to find myself in a full body cast.
Why are people so against the advancing of science?
Buncha damned Luddites, if you ask me.
No cite, I can’t for the life of me remember where I read it. Heck, it might have come from a conversation with Dr.J or one of his med-school buddies doing a urology rotation. Urologic reconstruction is definitely something we’ve discussed over dinner, so that could be it. (And we wonder why nobody ever wants to go out to eat with us.)
I doubt hormones are the only possible influence, because it seems then candidates for MtoF would have a greater tendency to be attracted to guys. (Or is there a correlation?) My WAG is that it is sometimes a self image thing. Straight guys are often uncomfortable around or even repulsed by other guys, even those who are generally considered to be attractive. Heck, look at our urinal habits - we openly avoid each other! 
Anyway, when a boy reaches puberty, and sees himself becoming a man (= that which he finds unattractive), if he has any self image issues he might fantasize about being a girl so as to have the confidence to not worry about what people think of him. Of course I do not think this is always the case.
I do not think this is ever the case.